China requires Influencers diploma

The announcement of that digital influencers who publish content about finance, law, health or education must prove formal qualifications — such as a university degree or professional certification — reignites a very current debate: who has the right to “speak with authority” on topics that impact the entire population?

What’s positive

• In areas such as finance, health or law, the risk of harm from free and superficial advice is high. The qualification requirement seeks to raise the minimum level of responsibility.
• The measure can act as a filter to prevent unprepared “opinion makers” from occupying strategic spaces of influence over individual or collective decisions.
• In societies marked by the rapid circulation of misinformation, a criteria of “who is qualified to give an opinion” can help protect the most vulnerable users.
• In terms of digital governance, the recognition that online influence has a real impact on decisions — economic, health or legal — strengthens the demand for responsibility on those who speak.

But the dangers and weaknesses are relevant

1. Problem: influencers giving their opinion without adequate preparation

Several studies demonstrate that much of the content produced by influencers about finance or health is made by people without qualifications or technical background — which can lead to wrong decisions on the part of the public. For example:

• One of Money Supermarket in 2024, concluded that 74% of “financial hacks” videos posted by influencers contained advice “potentially dangerous, incorrect or meaningless”.
• In the health sector, a study of concluded that influencers who post medical “advice” may be setting a standard of care — and causing harm — even though they are neither qualified nor regulated.
• In finance, the role of “finfluencers” (financial influencers) has already been highlighted as a source of risk: many followers trust what these creators say, even without credentials.

2. Illustrative cases of failures or losses

• The case of Logan Paul: He promoted the cryptocurrency/game project CryptoZoo, which ended up delivering less than promised and caused losses among investors.
• A US fitness influencer, Brittany Dawn Davis, has been sued by the State of Texas for giving inappropriate health advice, sometimes to women with eating disorders.
• A marketing campaign by American broker M1 Finance used digital influencers who promoted services without adequate supervision and were penalized by the regulator.

These examples reinforce that, when the person who occupies a position of visibility assumes the role of “expert” without preparation, the effect can be harmful — for him (in reputation/legal actions) and, mainly, for those he trusts.

3. The second problem: when the State becomes the sole “moderator”

Returning to China: although qualification can bring benefits, there is a clear risk that the State — or a central regulatory agency — becomes the absolute arbiter of who “has a voice”. This raises several concerns:

• The plurality of opinions is threatened if only “authorized” people can comment publicly on sensitive topics.
• Criticism, dissenting debate or emerging voices with technical knowledge but without a traditional formal degree may be silenced.
• The transparency of qualification criteria, appeal processes and freedom of expression are at risk.
• In short: creating a “minimum standard of authority” is valid, but if this standard is used as an instrument of political or cultural control, it becomes an instrument of censorship.

Why this debate matters in Brazil and Latin America

• In Brazil, digital influence grows every day, including on topics such as personal finances, popular health, compliance and data protection. Fundamental questions emerge: who is talking to you? What is your background? What interests do you have behind the message?
• For IT, security, marketing, compliance and privacy professionals — the audiences you address — this signals that “digital voice” is becoming a risk or governance resource.
• On the regulation & digital education, we need to move towards two simultaneous fronts:
  1. Qualification and transparency: encourage influencers who deal with technical topics to declare credentials, make disclaimers, assume
  responsibility.
  2. Freedom Protection: ensure that the only “official” voice, in which the State defines who gives an opinion, does not become normal. Diversity, criticism and innovation also matter.
• In terms of privacy, governance and digital risks, this discussion connects with the debate of who defines “authority” in the digital space — and who monitors the consequences of disseminated messages.

Conclusion

China’s requirement for a degree for influencers covering finance, health, law or education can be seen as a necessary response to the real problem of superficial advice with a high popular impact. However, at the same time, it serves as a warning: yes, we need a qualified voice, but we cannot give up the restricted freedom of thought for some “ministry of truth”.

The balance between technical qualification and digital freedom will be decisive so that regulation does not turn into control and so that the influencer stops being a “pseudo-expert” and becomes responsible. In times when data, technology and privacy are at the center of decisions, we have to look carefully: who informs us — and with what authority?

Do you want to delve deeper into the subject, do you have any questions, comments or want to share your experience on this topic? Write to me on Instagram: .

*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.